Maybe he thinks other governments aren't anywhere near having the capability "to do the same", depending on what "the same" is. (Most states could tap cell phone calls off the air or make domestic carriers turn over lots of data, but not tap undersea cables, and probably not extensively compromise commercial telecommunications infrastructure in other countries.)
Maybe he thinks pretty much all governments have been trying to spy on everyone they can for some time now and none of them have so far perceived significant legal, political, economic, or moral deterrents in doing so.
Personally, I think your fingerprinting example is instructive because the practices of one state do have an influence on the practices of another -- though fingerprinting is something that the general public can see directly, unlike most electronic surveillance. After all,the fingerprinting is quite overt. I take Snowden's (and Eben Moglen's) point that states and spooks have talked together for a long time about their deeply shared understanding of spying, and never thought it was necessary to tell or ask the public.
"Maybe he thinks pretty much all governments have been trying to spy on everyone they can for some time now and none of them have so far perceived significant legal, political, economic, or moral deterrents in doing so."
I think that's it. Clearly enough to eject drink from nose
to suggest that something that is essentially a secret activity
will be stopped merely because the US doesn't do it anymore.
Will point out though that in reverse maybe not as true.
In other words it's quite possible that something that you perceive someone as doing
that you hadn't thought of then becomes something that you contemplate.
Let's take an example.
Red light cameras. You see it done in one city and so
you say "hey we can do red light cameras".
A bit later another city (say NYC) decides to remove red light
cameras (assuming they have them I'm using NYC as "well known and large"
for the purposes of this example). Doesn't mean other cities will
stop (once the cat is out of the bag or the genie out of the bottle etc.)
Maybe he thinks other governments aren't anywhere near having the capability "to do the same", depending on what "the same" is. (Most states could tap cell phone calls off the air or make domestic carriers turn over lots of data, but not tap undersea cables, and probably not extensively compromise commercial telecommunications infrastructure in other countries.)
Maybe he thinks pretty much all governments have been trying to spy on everyone they can for some time now and none of them have so far perceived significant legal, political, economic, or moral deterrents in doing so.
Personally, I think your fingerprinting example is instructive because the practices of one state do have an influence on the practices of another -- though fingerprinting is something that the general public can see directly, unlike most electronic surveillance. After all,the fingerprinting is quite overt. I take Snowden's (and Eben Moglen's) point that states and spooks have talked together for a long time about their deeply shared understanding of spying, and never thought it was necessary to tell or ask the public.